There’s an extremely tangled, virtually incoherent post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog today: Is Intelligent Design a Peasants’ Revolt? It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger.
It references a dozen articles from various websites, all of which we’ll ignore. A quick answer to Klinghoffer’s title question would be: “Intelligent design is a theocratic propaganda campaign crafted to appeal to creationists, but it isn’t much of a revolt.” We described it in Intelligent Design, the Great Incongruity, where we said:
How does ID differ from that good old fashioned, down-home, foot-stompin’, psalm-singin’, floor-rollin’, rafter-shakin’, old-time creationism? Traditional creationism is openly and honestly religious, while ID is the Discoveroids’ “Don’t ask, don’t tell” version of creationism. ID creationists have repackaged their dogma into an ostensibly secular concept which they claim is a scientific theory. Despite ID’s complete lack of any scientific attributes, it is promoted as a scientific alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. But it’s a flimsy disguise — a reversible coat with meaningless science jargon on the outside and miracles on the inside — a garment made for flashers.
In his latest post, Klinghoffer doesn’t even try to describe the Discoveroids’ “theory.” Instead he attempts to tie it into the US Presidential campaign — where creationism hasn’t even been mentioned. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
When I was a high school debater back in the Reagan era, scaremongering about nuclear war was omnipresent. Facing off, debate teams had a habit, which became a joke, of arguing that any policy favored by their opponents would result in an exchange of warheads with the USSR. Even something as innocuous as to support, or oppose, a law requiring automobile airbags could be wrestled into a threat of annihilation.
Where is Klinghoffer going with that strange beginning? We shall soon see. He says:
It goes beyond high school. In countering an idea you really don’t like, the temptation is to try to drop a nuclear bomb on it. Not only is the idea misconceived, you say, it is so dangerous that it will lead to national catastrophe.
Ah, so he’s going to accuse us of that kind of tactic. Well, it’s true that if the Discoveroids were ever to succeed in implementing their Wedge strategy, the result would indeed be catastrophic. Let’s read on:
The media’s enforcers of orthodoxy in opinions pertaining to science really, really despise skeptics on evolution and climate control, those advocates of “anti-science.” I should have seen it coming, then, that they would eventually reach for the political season’s populist warhead: Donald Trump.
What? Has Trump even offered an opinion on evolution? Not that I’m aware. So far, his views on climate change haven’t played a very prominent a role either, though that could change.
What does Trump’s candidacy have to do with intelligent design? Klinghoffer continues:
Or is “anti-science” the bomb, maybe, and Trump the target? Either way, writers at [two liberal websites] have tried to link the two, arguing that public skepticism on sensitive scientific matters is so dire a threat that it even played a role in summoning the peasant scourge, Trump.
Then he quotes from one of those websites:
[Purported quote:] The anti-intellectualism that has been a mainstay of the conservative movement for decades also makes its members easy marks. After all, if you are taught to believe that the reigning scientific consensuses on evolution and climate change are lies, then you will lack the elementary logical skills that will set your alarm bells ringing when you hear a flim-flam artist like Trump. The Republican “war on science” is also a war on the intellectual habits needed to detect lies.
Okay, we get it. Some pundit is saying that: (1) Trump’s campaign appeals only to idiots; (2) all the anti-science idiots are Republicans: and therefore (3) all the creationists will vote for Trump. That does seem a bit extreme, because we know there are creationists in both parties, and to that extent Klinghoffer may have a point. But we don’t see how any of this makes intelligent design more than what it is — a creationist crusade.
Then he links to several articles saying that Democrats also have problems with science. That’s a point we’ve made a few times before — see, for example: Is Your Political Party Really Pro-Science? But none of that has anything to do with the scientific validity of the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design. Here’s more from Klinghoffer:
That aside, [two authors he mentioned] raise an interesting question about populism and the variety of skepticism on science that we know best here, intelligent design. No peasants’ revolt, surely, ID nevertheless embraces intuition as a scientific tool in a way that infuriates Darwinists.
Intuition? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, feelings are a vital part of the creationists search for The Truth™.
Klinghoffer then mentions “a new survey showing massive popular (and non-partisan) support for academic freedom in teaching and research about ID,” about which we wrote Discoveroid “Poll” Favors Teaching Nonsense, and he quotes Discoveroid Doug Axe who says:
The question of our origin is far too important to be left to professional scientists.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That reminds us of the infamous creationist dentist, Don McLeroy, who, as Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, declared: “Someone has to stand up to these experts!” Then Klinghoffer give us yet another quote:
Bestselling novelist Dean Koontz in his dust-jack blurb echoes Axe’s phrase, “common science”: “Axe uses ‘common science’ to consider the biggest mystery: To what or to whom do we owe our existence?”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Who’s leading a peasant’s revolt? Moving along:
ID may validate intuition, but it does so on scientific grounds. The soundest rebuke to the charge of “anti-intellectualism” — from design advocates or other skeptics on Darwinian theory — may be from the words of our own critics. Darwinists have a morbid fear, a terrible allergy to directly confronting arguments for ID.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’re afraid! Then he complains that the Discoveroids’ critics won’t even read Discoveroid books. Imagine that! At the end he says:
The question of what really drives Trump supporters has launched countless op-eds, blog posts, and think pieces. I leave the subject to others. But to imagine that skepticism on evolution is driven by “anti-intellectualism” is the most absurd criticism I’ve heard in a while.
Well, dear reader. We warned you that Klinghoffer had written an extremely tangled, virtually incoherent post. Were we wrong?
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.